RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/10/hillary-clinton-conspiracy-queen/

Two of the most corrosive dirty-tricks schemes in modern American history lead right back to her.

‘T here’s always been a kind of paranoid streak in American politics,” former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton told Jennifer Senior at The Atlantic Festival recently. “But it never was given such voice, such a platform, or had so much money behind it until we saw the rise of the right-wing radio voices like Rush Limbaugh, and we saw the rise of Fox News. And then, of course, the Internet just put it on steroids.”

It’s true, no doubt, that democratized media exacerbates the worst (and best) of human tendencies. Yet, it is quite jarring to hear this complaint coming from a person whose operatives were likely involved in birtherism and later were the driving force behind the Russian “collusion” hoax — two of modern political history’s most corrosive conspiracy theories.

Even as Hillary was going on about the devastating role that paranoia plays in our political interactions, Senior somehow forgot to ask her a single question about an ongoing investigation by Special Counsel John Durham into her campaign’s role in concocting an oppo file and creating a narrative that the 2016 election was stolen by Putin. The week of the interview, Durham was reportedly handing down a new set of subpoenas on a law firm with ties to Clinton’s 2016 campaign. Last month, Hillary’s former lawyer Michael Sussmann was indicted for allegedly giving false statements to the FBI in connection to a Clinton-campaign deception that engulfed nearly the entire political world for nearly five years. There has now been one more indictment for allegedly lying about Russian “collusion” in 2016 than there was for any criminal conspiracy tied to the election. Has anyone even asked Hillary about these indictments?

Even if Clinton was kept in the dark about the oppo file that was filled with half-baked lies and unverified bar talk — and being kept in the dark is the excuse she’s heavily leaned on her entire scandal-ridden career — she wasn’t merely an innocent bystander, looking on while dirty tricksters damaged trust in the system for political gain.

https://issuesinsights.com/2021/10/04/the-research-that-shows-how-destructive-the-biden-spending-will-be/

It’s truly frightening how obsessed the Democrats are with spending nearly $5 trillion on infrastructure and social programs. They’re behaving as if our republic would buckle and collapse if their agenda isn’t passed. The real danger, though, are their ideas, which are economic IEDs.

More than 20 years ago, UCLA professors Lee Ohanian and Harold Cole, now a University of Pennsylvania professor, produced a report that showed President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s policies not only didn’t end the Great Depression, they extended the misery by seven years. Simply put, there was too much government intervention in the economy.

FDR’s policies and those of President Joe Biden and the Democrats are not entirely analogous. Ohanian and Cole focused “primarily on the impact of Roosevelt’s early policies that allowed for monopolies and too much union power to increase prices and salaries.” The Democrats’ bills are mostly, but not exclusively, about spending other people’s money.

Another difference: We are not in a depression. The country is recovering from a downturn caused by officials foolishly locking down the economy, which they told us was necessary to beat the pandemic.

However, we can expect at best a sclerotic economy, and depression-like conditions, if the Biden bills become law. The unbridled spending will exacerbate the inflation that’s disrupting the U.S. economy as well as compound the supply chain problems that are blowing “a stagflationary wind through the global economy.”

Citadel professor of ethics and free enterprise leadership Richard Ebeling calls “the fiscal mindset of those in the White House and in Congress who are proposing new federal budgetary expenditure,” and tax hikes “in the trillions of dollars,” a “fantasy land of financial irrationality.”

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/17831/president-advisors

Published reports reveal that John Podesta, Bill Clinton’s former chief of staff and senior counselor to Barack Obama, has sent a memo to every Democratic Congressman reminding them the party “must unite and act together” to pass Biden’s “infrastructure” agenda.

Podesta, according to an email released from Wikileaks, was also previously approached by an advisor to Dominion Voting Systems who was “offering ‘anything’ that might defeat Trump.” What was the advisor to the voting machines company offering?

Podesta’s older brother, Tony, was a long time mega Democratic lobbyist and fund raiser. His lobbying career has been resurrected with a New York Times report that the embattled Chinese telecommunications giant Huawei has hired Podesta. Huawei was identified as a national security threat by the Trump administration and faces federal charges of racketeering and conspiring to steal trade secrets from American companies. One supposes that Podesta’s retainer is in dollars and requires him to promote the interests of a company alleged to be an extension of the Chinese government.

Given Biden’s curious response to ABC News, one could legitimately ask, just whose national policy are we actually pursuing? The president’s or his advisors?

Henry the VIII had Thomas Cromwell as his Privy Counselor with Cromwell playing a vital role in the King’s personal, domestic, and international relationships.

Napoleon depended on Talleyrand as his Grand Chamberlain, a master diplomat who managed to serve King Louis XVI, the leaders of the French Revolution, and then Napoleon.

https://amgreatness.com/2021/10/03/our-woke-national-icons/

As we watch events unfold in 2021, obvious questions about the fitness of our national leaders present themselves. Who are these new woke national icons and how did they come to lord it over the rest of us? Here are some observations by way of preliminary explanation.

The Strategist

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley conceded to Congress last week that he has been an anonymous source to controversial “inside” progressive muckrakers detailing the supposed dysfunctions of the prior administration. He strangely characterizes such anonymous, self-serving, behind-the-scenes leaking as some sort of public-service transparency. Evidently, it is now a part of the chairman’s duties to serve the media.

Among the many “background” quotes that Milley provided to meet his journalistic obligations were his various comparisons of his commander-in-chief to Nazis—a violation of Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. He reportedly offered further allegations to journalists that news outlets like the Epoch Times and Newsmax were “terrorist” organizations. When pressed on such details the usually punctilious Milley shrugs, in the fashion of James Comey’s under-oath testimonies, that he does “not recall” such specifics.  Such is the honor of the nation’s most visible military officer.

Although by statute Milley lacks operational command, he admittedly has intervened in the operational protocols concerning the use of nuclear weapons. At one point, after a conversation with, and on the apparent prompting of, HouseSpeaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), he redirected normal decision-making channels concerning the potential use of nuclear weapons through his own person. That is forbidden by law—despite what his beltway apologists have pleaded.

More interestingly, though, Milley took it upon himself to call up the major military leaders of Communist China, and to apprise them that (in his opinion) the United States was in crisis (“messy”). No worries, though: the freelancing Milley assured the People’s Liberation Army heads that they should not worry about any preemptive attack or aggression, since Milley himself apparently was in de facto charge of such strategic decision-making and would warn them in advance if his country seemed dangerously aggressive. Thus far in the imbroglio, the Pentagon and the retired military apparently seem comfortable with such a radically new role for the chairman of the Joint Chiefs.

Milley ignored that Trump was the first president in memory who did not initiate a major new military engagement. And when pressed under oath, Milley himself later confessed that he did not think Trump was likely to start a war against anyone—which raises the question of why he even made such a peremptory call to our adversaries? Much of what Milley has testified to under oath before Congress is flatly contradicted by transcripts of his phone call with Pelosi, is in utter conflict with statements made by President Biden and the State Department and cannot be reconciled with his own frequent prior disclosures to journalists.

In sum, America’s highest-ranking honorific military officer has violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice, has violated the law concerning his own advisory role as chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and has either serially not told the truth, or assumes that Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, several journalists (and various earlier incarnations of himself) are all not telling the truth.

Milley has set a new precedent for the leadership of the Joint Chiefs of Staff: it is now permissible to be overtly political, to leak confidential conversations to progressive book-writing journalists, to freelance and warn likely enemies if and when the U.S. military might take action against them, and to pick and choose when to exercise (illegally) operational command, and when (legally) to refrain, or at least to remain “only” an advisor, when culpability for a disaster, like the one in Afghanistan, is determined.

Historians will later ponder why this officer has not resigned and what his continued tenure says about the status of the current U.S. military.